These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey] X-L Weapons Balance

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
smoking gun81
Doomheim
#421 - 2013-05-20 14:47:58 UTC
mynnna wrote:


I'm well aware as to what speed tanking a missile means. As (unlike so many others in this thread) you are evidently aware, you cannot just say "X ship moves at Y speed, the missile has Z explosion velocity, Y < Z, therefore massive drop in damage." Sig radius applies as well, increasing the actual speed required before damage mitigation occurs.

While (as smoking gun81 demonstrated) it's certainly possible to get a supercap moving that fast, I hope you'd agree it's not exactly normal.

Now, smaller capitals, carriers especially, can speed tank citadel torps, quite effectively in fact. Unfortunately, changing that simply by playing with the stats themselves would start to move us into territory where (aside from the really low missile velocity) Phoenixes could be considered be 'too good' at blapping subcaps... Blink



While I agree it's not a normal fitting practice it is however possible to get a super carrier moving quite fast ( atm 402M/s on my hel although I'm sure I've hit the upper limit here ) and I don't want to bring yet another dread into the realms of blapping subs.
Instead I would probably restrict 100MN propulsion modules to being fitted to BS hulls ( like the MJD is today although some hull crossovers would be needed for exceptional BC fittings ) however this would create rage from both the 100NM tengu lovers and those that want a faster super.

But I digress
Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#422 - 2013-05-20 14:51:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Gaines
mynnna wrote:


Now, smaller capitals, carriers especially, can speed tank citadel torps, quite effectively in fact. Unfortunately, changing that simply by playing with the stats themselves would start to move us into territory where (aside from the really low missile velocity) Phoenixes could be considered be 'too good' at blapping subcaps... Blink


Increase the cruise missile explosion velocity to around 45-50m/s, torps to about 30m/s. Increase cruise damage by 10%.

There are ways to stop blapping, and personally it's a love/hate for me. I like being able to do cap escalations, however to change mechanics to solve blapping you'll end up nerfing that as well.

It's simple enough to give a lock time penalty under siege to any ships that are subcaps, even as high as a 50% increase. This doesn't stop the ability to blap but it's just as effective as reducing the RoF without actually gimping the dread for its purpose.

smoking gun81 wrote:

While I agree it's not a normal fitting practice it is however possible to get a super carrier moving quite fast ( atm 402M/s on my hel although I'm sure I've hit the upper limit here ) and I don't want to bring yet another dread into the realms of blapping subs.
Instead I would probably restrict 100MN propulsion modules to being fitted to BS hulls ( like the MJD is today although some hull crossovers would be needed for exceptional BC fittings ) however this would create rage from both the 100NM tengu lovers and those that want a faster super.

But I digress



The whole point of having 1mn/10mn/100mn was to prevent oversized prop mods on the ships. CCP just kinda derped and didn't actually put the restriction on ship class.

I see this being fixed sometime soon. Personally I'm not a fan of using oversized prop mods.

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.
smoking gun81
Doomheim
#423 - 2013-05-20 15:10:25 UTC
Vincent Gaines wrote:
mynnna wrote:


Now, smaller capitals, carriers especially, can speed tank citadel torps, quite effectively in fact. Unfortunately, changing that simply by playing with the stats themselves would start to move us into territory where (aside from the really low missile velocity) Phoenixes could be considered be 'too good' at blapping subcaps... Blink


Increase the cruise missile explosion velocity to around 45-50m/s, torps to about 30m/s. Increase cruise damage by 10%.

There are ways to stop blapping, and personally it's a love/hate for me. I like being able to do cap escalations, however to change mechanics to solve blapping you'll end up nerfing that as well.

It's simple enough to give a lock time penalty under siege to any ships that are subcaps, even as high as a 50% increase. This doesn't stop the ability to blap but it's just as effective as reducing the RoF without actually gimping the dread for its purpose.

smoking gun81 wrote:

While I agree it's not a normal fitting practice it is however possible to get a super carrier moving quite fast ( atm 402M/s on my hel although I'm sure I've hit the upper limit here ) and I don't want to bring yet another dread into the realms of blapping subs.
Instead I would probably restrict 100MN propulsion modules to being fitted to BS hulls ( like the MJD is today although some hull crossovers would be needed for exceptional BC fittings ) however this would create rage from both the 100NM tengu lovers and those that want a faster super.

But I digress



The whole point of having 1mn/10mn/100mn was to prevent oversized prop mods on the ships. CCP just kinda derped and didn't actually put the restriction on ship class.

I see this being fixed sometime soon. Personally I'm not a fan of using oversized prop mods.


In the context of discussion it's not really oversized propulsion modules that bother me but supers using 100MN propulsion modules with impunity, The side effect of hull restriction of the 100MN propulsion module range would just have the effect of killing the 100MN tengu also.
Quindaster
Infernal Laboratory
Infernal Octopus
#424 - 2013-05-20 16:25:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Quindaster
mynnna wrote:
Meduza13 wrote:
At the moment dreadnoughts are great ships, worth their price and skills required. Maybe apart from phoenix which is pretty bad against anything that moves.
All people crying about dreadnoughts killing subcapitals are just pathetic. Solo moros will not kill anything small, despite tracking everyone whining about. Dreadnoughts to kill subcapitals need support fleet and proper fit - which is absolutely fair and fun.
All people who cannot afford them or fly them or just simply don't use them in right way - should keep quiet and learn to use potential of dreadnoughts instead of crying "oh, these dreads are so strong, CCP please do something"
I said on couple threads already - expensive/high skill ships should be efficient and fun to use.
I already see 100mil sp pilots flying in damn cruisers.

CCP I beg for the love of god, stop nerfing big ships and boosting trash cruisers and frigates.

Ok folks, I'm waiting for an ocean of cruiser sized tears.


I could buy you, your dreadnaught, and your entire miserable corporation a dozen times over (and that's being entirely too generous about the value of you or your corp, I'm sure) and you're wrong, and not only are you wrong but you're wrong an impressive number of times for such a short post. Sorry. Well, no, not really sorry. Smile




We have not heard anything constructive, only bla-bla-bla tears of goon who follow 100500 crusers and destroyers.
Where you can see even in real life dreads cannot hit BS?! Even in RL Dreads easily can hit BS, without any bonus tracking.
Just because you need to have blob of destroyers and blob of crusers for own alliance, it doesn't mean all people in this game who doesn't belong for Tests and Goons need to fly on same trash ships like goons did.

Some people want to have small gang intresting fight where 20 people can fight against 30-50 other people and win only by good skills and good ships and good tactic. Not all fights in EVE like goon fights where your bring 1000 talwars and caracals on every 10 enemy players. It's not fun and it's not a fight. Fight - where enemy can have good chance to win too, and if they have zero chance - it's not fight.

And new people come to EVE bcause they see some movies about fights, and intresting fights, like RnK videos and other small gang fights, and not because they see 1000 talwars and 1000 caracals vs 20 bs like goons and Tests think.
Coolmer
Kanizsa triangle
#425 - 2013-05-20 17:15:30 UTC
Disaster.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#426 - 2013-05-20 17:43:51 UTC
smoking gun81 wrote:

While I agree it's not a normal fitting practice it is however possible to get a super carrier moving quite fast ( atm 402M/s on my hel although I'm sure I've hit the upper limit here ) and I don't want to bring yet another dread into the realms of blapping subs.
Instead I would probably restrict 100MN propulsion modules to being fitted to BS hulls ( like the MJD is today although some hull crossovers would be needed for exceptional BC fittings ) however this would create rage from both the 100NM tengu lovers and those that want a faster super.

But I digress


While we're at it:
- Small Turrets: frigates only
- Medium Turrets: cruiser and BC only
- Large Turrets: BS only
- Small booster/extender: frigate only
- medium booster/extender: cruiser only
- large booster/extender: BC only
- XL booster: BS only
- 50/100mm plate: frigate only
- 200/400mm plate: cruiser only
- 800mm plate: BC only
- 1600mm plate: BS only
- SAR: frigate only
- MAR: cruiser and BC only
- LAR: BS only
- Hybrids: Gallente ships only
- Missiles: Caldari ships only
- Projectiles: Minmatar ships only
- Lasers: Amarr ships only

Whee, this can be fun!

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Angelhunter
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#427 - 2013-05-20 18:05:40 UTC
So Fozzie, we have a lot of good ideas presented here and a very good discussion going (minus a few trolls). Will you be joining this discussion, and will there be any iterations to these proposed changes?
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#428 - 2013-05-20 18:16:02 UTC
Quindaster wrote:
Some people want to have small gang intresting fight where 20 people can fight against 30-50 other people and win only by good skills and good ships and good tactic. Not all fights in EVE like goon fights where your bring 1000 talwars and caracals on every 10 enemy players. It's not fun and it's not a fight. Fight - where enemy can have good chance to win too, and if they have zero chance - it's not fight.

This is pretty funny coming from a guy who lost a blackops gank squad to a lone arbitrator. I guess CCP really did overbuff those darned cruisers. :(
smoking gun81
Doomheim
#429 - 2013-05-20 18:19:45 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
smoking gun81 wrote:

While I agree it's not a normal fitting practice it is however possible to get a super carrier moving quite fast ( atm 402M/s on my hel although I'm sure I've hit the upper limit here ) and I don't want to bring yet another dread into the realms of blapping subs.
Instead I would probably restrict 100MN propulsion modules to being fitted to BS hulls ( like the MJD is today although some hull crossovers would be needed for exceptional BC fittings ) however this would create rage from both the 100NM tengu lovers and those that want a faster super.

But I digress


While we're at it:
- Small Turrets: frigates only
- Medium Turrets: cruiser and BC only
- Large Turrets: BS only
- Small booster/extender: frigate only
- medium booster/extender: cruiser only
- large booster/extender: BC only
- XL booster: BS only
- 50/100mm plate: frigate only
- 200/400mm plate: cruiser only
- 800mm plate: BC only
- 1600mm plate: BS only
- SAR: frigate only
- MAR: cruiser and BC only
- LAR: BS only
- Hybrids: Gallente ships only
- Missiles: Caldari ships only
- Projectiles: Minmatar ships only
- Lasers: Amarr ships only

Whee, this can be fun!

-Liang


O.o you're funny I thought this was a thread about X-L turrets the ships they are fitted to and by extension dreadnaughts and their ability to hit things ( like the phoenix ).
As I'm not a phoenix pilot ( or use any missiles of any kind ) I was theorising about the ability of supers to speed tank a phoenix with impunity ( as in no ability to disable the MWD's that are fitted to them or effect the afterburner ) since they are immune to E-war like webs and scrams.

Perhaps you could follow the thread a bit better if you read it now go back to your 100MN fitted tengu / super and let those that have relevant input to this discussion discuss the situation.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#430 - 2013-05-20 18:24:16 UTC
smoking gun81 wrote:

O.o you're funny I thought this was a thread about X-L turrets the ships they are fitted to and by extension dreadnaughts and their ability to hit things ( like the phoenix ).
As I'm not a phoenix pilot ( or use any missiles of any kind ) I was theorising about the ability of supers to speed tank a phoenix with impunity ( as in no ability to disable the MWD's that are fitted to them or effect the afterburner ) since they are immune to E-war like webs and scrams.

Perhaps you could follow the thread a bit better if you read it now go back to your 100MN fitted tengu / super and let those that have relevant input to this discussion discuss the situation.


You're the one suggesting that the fix for XL weapons is to start arbitrarily size restricting modules. Kindly go **** yourself.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#431 - 2013-05-20 18:29:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Gaines
Liang Nuren wrote:
You're the one suggesting that the fix for XL weapons is to start arbitrarily size restricting modules. Kindly go **** yourself.

-Liang



Calm down there, buddy.

Size restrictions were always designed to be in place, as well as other specific modules (it's why mods have 99% reductions, or for a more appropriate module the MJD).

It's not so much the mod but that fitting something oversize should gimp the ship. a 100mn Tengu is the 2013 equivilent to the 2006 stabbabond.

Don't use the slippery slope argument. It doesn't work here.

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#432 - 2013-05-20 18:43:59 UTC
Vincent Gaines wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
You're the one suggesting that the fix for XL weapons is to start arbitrarily size restricting modules. Kindly go **** yourself.

-Liang



Calm down there, buddy.

Size restrictions were always designed to be in place, as well as other specific modules (it's why mods have 99% reductions, or for a more appropriate module the MJD).

It's not so much the mod but that fitting something oversize should gimp the ship. a 100mn Tengu is the 2013 equivilent to the 2006 stabbabond.

Don't use the slippery slope argument. It doesn't work here.


It actually does work. What you're complaining about is exactly equivalent to people complaining about "battleship drones", "battleship plates", and "battleship boosters" on cruisers. If you're gonna be size locking modules, we better just go all the way. Again: fixing the problems with XL weapons has literally **** all to do with this and you guys are trying to shoe horn in a solution for a problem that doesn't actually need fixed.

Also, if you can't kill a 100mn tengu then you're pretty terrible.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#433 - 2013-05-20 18:51:30 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


It actually does work. What you're complaining about is exactly equivalent to people complaining about "battleship drones", "battleship plates", and "battleship boosters" on cruisers. If you're gonna be size locking modules, we better just go all the way. Again: fixing the problems with XL weapons has literally **** all to do with this and you guys are trying to shoe horn in a solution for a problem that doesn't actually need fixed.

Also, if you can't kill a 100mn tengu then you're pretty terrible.

-Liang


For many years I figured you to be at least somewhat respectable but damn, you're posting like a little child.

Prop mods have been size locked for years. Hence the "frigate class module, cruiser class module, and battleship class module" However this was back when CCP was pretty bad at QA and didn't have it fully restricted. And until the T3s were released years later did the subsystem method open the window for experimentation on using oversize modules.

Currently, there are many mod restrictions. MJD, CovOps cloak, Siege launchers, warfare links, strip miners, remote ECM burst, and more that I can't name off the top of my head.

And again, pulling the "slippery slope" card is just laughable. It doesn't work arguing against gay marriage and it won't work here.

This isn't a complete sandbox and things need to be done for balance.

HOWEVER

This is not even relevant to the thread. It was an offhand comment about putting a prop mod on a cap, which unless you're doing it to close (which in itself isn't necessary) is comepletely stupid.

Just. Let. It. Go.

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#434 - 2013-05-20 18:59:38 UTC
Vincent Gaines wrote:

For many years I figured you to be at least somewhat respectable but damn, you're posting like a little child.

Prop mods have been size locked for years. Hence the "frigate class module, cruiser class module, and battleship class module" However this was back when CCP was pretty bad at QA and didn't have it fully restricted. And until the T3s were released years later did the subsystem method open the window for experimentation on using oversize modules.

This isn't a complete sandbox and things need to be done for balance.

This is not even relevant to the thread. It was an offhand comment about putting a prop mod on a cap, which unless you're doing it to close (which in itself isn't necessary) is comepletely stupid.

Just. Let. It. Go.


Prop mods have never been size locked and I was exposed to oversize prop mods my first week in Eve back in 2006. For a long time they were considered impractical in the same way that fitting a heavy neut to a curse is impractical (but doable). This lets us see fits that pretty much everyone considers to be impractical but someone manages to make it work. Ultimately, my point here is this:

If CCP wants to nerf oversized prop mods, then they need to nerf oversized prop mods as oversized prop mods. I consider this to be a mistake, but it's well within CCP's right to do so. However, nerfing oversized prop mods as a side effect of balancing XL weapons is just ******* stupid. The way it was mentioned was exactly the same kind of nudge-nudge-wink-wink dog whistle bullshit you see the GOP pulling day in and day out.

That's why once we've locked prop mods, we'll lock neuts. Then we'll lock 1600 plates because obviously they are battleship sized too and it makes Ruptures too good vs Thoraxes. This really is the definition of a slippery slope.

Quote:
And again, pulling the "slippery slope" card is just laughable. It doesn't work arguing against gay marriage and it won't work here.


I don't normally bring up politics on the forums, but I'm totally for gay marriage. I have no ******* idea why you'd think I wasn't.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Deathwing Reborn
#435 - 2013-05-20 19:02:12 UTC
I have read through this thread a bit but am still confused as to why CCP thinks this is good when Dreads are soo under utilized as it is.



Question though. Was looking at the math for the blasters. -10km optimal and +10k falloff. So looking at those numbers does that mean the Blasters will have an optimal of 20k (30k - 10) and a falloff of 25k (15k +10) now? You get 5k to work with or does the +10k falloff really mean lowering the falloff to 5k?
smoking gun81
Doomheim
#436 - 2013-05-20 19:07:13 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
smoking gun81 wrote:

O.o you're funny I thought this was a thread about X-L turrets the ships they are fitted to and by extension dreadnaughts and their ability to hit things ( like the phoenix ).
As I'm not a phoenix pilot ( or use any missiles of any kind ) I was theorising about the ability of supers to speed tank a phoenix with impunity ( as in no ability to disable the MWD's that are fitted to them or effect the afterburner ) since they are immune to E-war like webs and scrams.

Perhaps you could follow the thread a bit better if you read it now go back to your 100MN fitted tengu / super and let those that have relevant input to this discussion discuss the situation.


You're the one suggesting that the fix for XL weapons is to start arbitrarily size restricting modules. Kindly go **** yourself.

-Liang



No the digression I was referring to was the phoenix and its theoretical application of damage to supers or the possible ability of supers speed tanking said phoenix since X-L guns apply to dreadnaughts ( X-L guns > dreadnaughts > phoenix thought progression ).

Now do you have anything better to add to this thread more than your rage, attempted profanity ( in every response ) and rather childish behaviour that is far from constructive.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#437 - 2013-05-20 19:14:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
smoking gun81 wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
smoking gun81 wrote:

O.o you're funny I thought this was a thread about X-L turrets the ships they are fitted to and by extension dreadnaughts and their ability to hit things ( like the phoenix ).
As I'm not a phoenix pilot ( or use any missiles of any kind ) I was theorising about the ability of supers to speed tank a phoenix with impunity ( as in no ability to disable the MWD's that are fitted to them or effect the afterburner ) since they are immune to E-war like webs and scrams.

Perhaps you could follow the thread a bit better if you read it now go back to your 100MN fitted tengu / super and let those that have relevant input to this discussion discuss the situation.


You're the one suggesting that the fix for XL weapons is to start arbitrarily size restricting modules. Kindly go **** yourself.

-Liang



No the digression I was referring to was the phoenix and its theoretical application of damage to supers or the possible ability of supers speed tanking said phoenix since X-L guns apply to dreadnaughts ( X-L guns > dreadnaughts > phoenix thought progression ).

Now do you have anything better to add to this thread more than your rage, attempted profanity ( in every response ) and rather childish behaviour that is far from constructive.


Why yes, I have something constructive to add. Fixing the Phoenix's damage application has literally nothing to do with changing propulsion modules. Also, the suggested changes to XL turrets don't go far enough and aren't strong enough.

-Liang

Ed: ****. ****. Damn. Hell. Gotta get my profanity fix in. Also, I've been ship toasting on these forums with profanity in damn near every post for a loooooooong time.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#438 - 2013-05-20 19:17:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Gaines
Liang Nuren wrote:

*snip irrelevant stuff*

However, nerfing oversized prop mods as a side effect of balancing XL weapons is just ******* stupid. The way it was mentioned was exactly the same kind of nudge-nudge-wink-wink dog whistle bullshit you see the GOP pulling day in and day out.

That's why once we've locked prop mods, we'll lock neuts. Then we'll lock 1600 plates because obviously they are battleship sized too and it makes Ruptures too good vs Thoraxes. This really is the definition of a slippery slope.


The whole "100mn cap" wasn't even a serious mention, you just took it and ran, raining sand from between your legs. It was made in jest.

Quote:


I don't normally bring up politics on the forums, but I'm totally for gay marriage. I have no ******* idea why you'd think I wasn't.

-Liang


It has nothing to do with your views, it has to do with the logical fallacy of your post.

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.
iskflakes
#439 - 2013-05-20 20:13:26 UTC
Is this a feedback thread or a "feedback thread"?

-
smoking gun81
Doomheim
#440 - 2013-05-20 20:18:51 UTC
Vincent Gaines wrote:


The whole "100mn cap" wasn't even a serious mention, you just took it and ran, raining sand from between your legs. It was made in jest.


Are you me or am I you ??

Please don't presume that anything I've suggested in this thread is in jest regardless of what you or anyone else thinks it's after all a forum a place for open discussion.

Apologies if I appear to be abrupt but people should not need reminding to abide by the forum rules.

Flame and troll away I've got an update deployment schedule to keep to reality is calling......RollRoll